Helicopter Resources Pty Ltd v Commonwealth of Australia (No 2) [2018] FCA 991

Helicopter Resources Pty Ltd v Commonwealth of Australia (No 2) [2018] FCA 991

The application failed because Helicopter did not establish that requiring Mr Lomas, who was not charged and would give evidence in his personal capacity, to attend and give evidence at the inquest would create the kind of improper interference with the administration of criminal justice that constitutes contempt or an impermissible alteration of the accusatorial process. The possible forensic advantage to the Commonwealth or the prosecution, and possible prejudice to Helicopter, were consequences rather than legally cognisable interference. The Coroner had statutory power to subpoena Mr Lomas and decline to adjourn the inquest, and Helicopter did not establish lack of authority, improper...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 June 2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Judicial Review Concerning an ACT Coronial Inquest and Pending Summary Work Health and Safety Criminal Proceedings / Final Determination of Originating Application After Interim Orders Preserving the Status Quo
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['act Coronial Inquest' 'parallel Criminal Proceedings' 'compulsory Examination of Witness' 'accusatorial System of Criminal Justice' 'principle of Legality' 'privilege Against Self Incrimination' "judicial Review of Coroner's Decision"]
['administrative Law' 'coronial Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'contempt of Court' 'evidence'] ['act Coronial Inquest' 'parallel Criminal Proceedings' 'compulsory Examination of Witness' 'accusatorial System of Criminal Justice' 'principle of Legality' 'privilege Against Self Incrimination' "judicial Review of Coroner's Decision"]

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Judicial Review Concerning an ACT Coronial Inquest and Pending Summary Work Health and Safety Criminal Proceedings / Final Determination of Originating Application After Interim Orders Preserving the Status Quo

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether requiring Helicopter's Chief Pilot, Mr David Lomas, to give evidence at the inquest before the criminal proceedings against Helicopter concluded would constitute an interference with the due administration of criminal justice or contempt of court." 'Whether the Coroners Act 1997 (ACT), read consistently with the principle of legality, authorised the Coroner to require Mr Lomas to give evidence if doing so would otherwise constitute contempt or impermissible interference.' "Whether the Coroner's decision to refuse an adjournment and to require Mr Lomas to attend involved lack of statutory authority, improper exercise of power, error of law, jurisdictional error, or unreasonableness." 'Whether s 51B of the Coroners Act 1997 (ACT) provided sufficient protection for Mr Lomas if he claimed privilege against self-incrimination.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application failed because Helicopter did not establish that requiring Mr Lomas, who was not charged and would give evidence in his personal capacity, to attend and give evidence at the inquest would create the kind of improper interference with the administration of criminal justice that constitutes contempt or an impermissible alteration of the accusatorial process. The possible forensic advantage to the Commonwealth or the prosecution, and possible prejudice to Helicopter, were consequences rather than legally cognisable interference. The Coroner had statutory power to subpoena Mr Lomas and decline to adjourn the inquest, and Helicopter did not establish lack of authority, improper...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The originating application be dismissed.' 'Order 1 made by Griffiths J on 30 April 2018 be discharged.' "The applicant pay the respondents' costs of and incidental to this proceeding, including the costs of the interlocutory application heard and determined by Griffiths J and costs of the second respondent that...